On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 11:38 AM, Matt Thomas wrote:
> arm doesn’t use .ctors/.dtors
>
> it has init/fini array instead.
The section names don't really matter. Probably .kctors/.kdtors are
less confusing (+ to avoid confliction with rump).
> and where would they be executed?
Somewhere in sys/k
> On Oct 29, 2014, at 7:30 PM, Christos Zoulas wrote:
>
> On Oct 30, 11:14am, uebay...@gmail.com (Masao Uebayashi) wrote:
> -- Subject: Re: CVS commit: src/usr.bin/config
>
> | Could you show me an example failure senario? What do you propose instead?
>
> I don't have anything *better* to pro
On Oct 30, 11:14am, uebay...@gmail.com (Masao Uebayashi) wrote:
-- Subject: Re: CVS commit: src/usr.bin/config
| Could you show me an example failure senario? What do you propose instead?
I don't have anything *better* to propose. I think mach-o constructors
are different.
| I heard that rump f
What do you expect by doing:
options FOO
no options FOO
options FOO
?
On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 10:51 AM, Christos Zoulas wrote:
> In article <20141030012621.0982...@cvs.netbsd.org>,
> Masao Uebayashi wrote:
>
> Re: constructors/destructors:
>
> Using them will create a portability constraint on elf. This has
> the implication that rump will not work on some platform
In article <20141030012621.0982...@cvs.netbsd.org>,
Masao Uebayashi wrote:
Re: constructors/destructors:
Using them will create a portability constraint on elf. This has
the implication that rump will not work on some platforms.
christos
